Carrasco & Geñoso

06/09/2026

First introduced in our criminal laws in the case of Genosa v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 135981), the Battered Woman Syndrome has now been codified as a legitimate defense under R.A. No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and Children Act. Learn more about its salient points with Atty. Mikko Doroja of Carrasco & Geñoso on Dura Lex Sed Lex with Bombo Jerome, this Sunday, 2:30 PM at Bombo Radyo CDO.

06/09/2026

LAW AND BEHOLD: WHY IS THE BAR SET HIGH?

By: Atty. Lj Ramos

Today, Sunday, another batch of hopefuls will take the 2026 Bar Examinations. For three (3) days: this Sunday, next Wednesday, and the following Sunday, they will be grappling with rules of impeachment, just and authorized causes for termination, special proceedings, etc., while facing their anxiety, panic, and personal battles - all for the chance to pass and achieve the coveted title of “Atty.”

While it is arguable whether or not it is the hardest licensure exam in the Philippines, it is undoubtedly the most notorious. Schools set up review classes, review centers prepare mock bars, school organizations initiate bar operations, kind bosses allow study leaves, just to make the bar takers’ lives a little bit easier as they try to conquer the exam. Not to mention the whole fanfare surrounding the entire affair, and the pressure to pass just keeps mounting for the takers.

The numbers do reflect the Bar Exam’s reputation. The average passing rate of the 2010s (2009-2019) is 26.62%. That meant that only 3 out of 10 who took the exam became lawyers. While the various reforms after the COVID era - such as the regionalized testing centers, the computerized examination, the syllabus, and the rethinking of the exam as a qualifying exam to admit entry-level lawyers - increased the average passing rate of the 2020s to 40% (2022-2025), the data still show that only 2 out of 5 takers would be taking their oaths and be part of the Integrated Bar. For the rest, they would have to face the question of whether to try again or not.

So why are the Supreme Court justices strictly gatekeeping the legal profession through the Bar Exam? It’s because becoming a lawyer is imbued with public interest. Hence, only the ones deemed ready should be able to proceed.

The case of In: Re Cunanan (94 Phil. 534 March 18, 1954) is enlightening on why the Supreme Court not only has full control on who becomes a lawyer, but also as to why there are stringent academic and mental qualifications to become one. For context, in: Re Cunanan is a resolution related to the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953, where the said law attempted to admit to the Philippine Bar those who failed the 1946 to 1955 Bar Examinations.

In striking down portions of the law, the Supreme Court elucidated that “The public interest demands of the legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency, precisely more so as legal problems evolved by the times become more difficult. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly.

To the legal profession is entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve officially of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. By its declared objective, the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession, as was exactly found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations.”

That case was resolved 72 years ago, and yet the core principles reverberate in 2026 as it did in 1954. The laws and legal problems have become more complex, and now more than ever we need lawyers that are efficient, analytical, and prepared for the rigors of the legal profession. It is the painful but necessary duty of the Supreme Court, through the Bar Examination, to sift through the thousands of aspirants, and find the ones ready to protect the citizens’ property, life, honor, and civil liberties.

Nonetheless, as my professor once said: passing the Bar Exam is not an option but a decision. A reading of Section 15, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court would show that subject to the review courses' conditions, the applicants can take and retake the Bar Exam for as many times as they are willing to take it until they pass. In short, failing the exam is not the end of one’s dreams. It is but an invitation to try again. Because resilience and fortitude are also key values for one who aims to become an officer of the Court.

The bar is indeed set high - public interest demands it. Just the same, it is surmountable with faith, grit, and determination.

Godspeed 2026 Bar Takers!

(Attribution: the photo used is credited to the Supreme Court of the Philippines - Public Information Office.
Disclaimer: This material is provided for general legal information only and is not a substitute for legal advice. Its application depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the firm, its partners, or its associates.)

05/09/2026

First introduced in our criminal laws in the case of Genosa v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 135981), the Battered Woman Syndrome has now been codified as a legitimate defense under R.A. No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and Children Act. Learn more about its salient points with Atty. Mikko Doroja on Dura Lex Sed Lex, this Sunday, 2:30 PM at Bombo Radyo Cagayan de Oro.

31/08/2026

Dear Torni,

I am a legitimate contractor for LGUs. First of all, I am an honest-to-goodness contractor, and I do things above board. My company won the public bidding for the rehabilitation and improvement of an LGU’s (that I can’t mention) flood control system. Once we were issued the project contract, we immediately started to work because this municipality is flood-prone and we want to help our fellow countrymen.

However, when our project was nearing completion, the mayor of the municipality refused to pay us! He said that since the municipal ordinance authorizing the disbursement of the funds for the flood control project was improperly passed, our project contract is also void and we will not be paid. The downpayment they initially gave us was already used and I had to borrow money just to finish this project, and now I might drown in debt. Please give me advice Torni what to do!
-Corra

Dear Corra,

Based on the facts you presented, even if the contract between you and the municipality was void and not binding, the said LGU is still obliged to pay you based on the principle of quantum meruit.

In the case of Municipality of Corella v. Philkonstrak Development Corporation, (G.R. No. 218663, 28 February 2022), the Supreme Court held that the principle of quantum meruit, or “as much as he deserves”, states that a person may recover a reasonable value of the thing he delivered or the service he rendered. It is a principle to prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain a benefit without paying for it.

In your case, even if the project contract was invalid because the municipal ordinance authorizing the disbursement of the funds was improperly passed, you are still entitled to receive the payment for the services—in this case, building the flood control project—that you rendered to the LGU. The LGU cannot be unjustly enriched and allowed to retain the benefits of the services you rendered without properly paying for it.

As long as what you say is true, that you received the project above board, it can be said that you entered into the contract in good faith, and you have the right to be compensated based on the extent of the work you’ve done, according to the principle of quantum meruit.

Therefore, you can recover from the LGU for the cost of the flood control project you have built.

(Tabang Torni is for public legal education only. The situations discussed are hypothetical or drawn from public issues and published court decisions. Any resemblance to actual persons or private cases is purely coincidental. No confidential or privileged client information is disclosed. The discussion is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. For advice regarding your specific circumstances, please consult a lawyer.)

30/08/2026

29/08/2026

Dear Torni,
I have a savings account with Bank with a deposit of P5 Million. To buy a new car, I obtained a loan from the same bank for P1.2 Million, which I agreed to pay in twelve monthly installments without any acceleration clause. I issued post-dated checks for P100k each to cover these payments. Unfortunately, the checks for the third, fourth, and fifth months bounced. The bank then declared my entire obligation due and proceeded to deduct P1 Million from my deposit, informing me that this is a form of 'compensation' allowed by law. Is my bank allowed to do this?
-Susan

Dear Susan,

Yes, the bank is correct in claiming the existence of compensation but wrong as to the amount compensated.

Article 1980 of the Civil Code states that “Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan.”

Article 1278 of the same law states that compensation occurs when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other, and both debts are due and demandable.

Here, your bank deposit is a contract of loan, where you, as the depositor, are the creditor, and the bank acts as the debtor. Since you also owe money from the bank due to your car loan, you are also a debtor, with your bank as your creditor. Therefore, you are both mutually principal debtors and creditors of each other.

Both obligations are due, demandable and liquidated but in your case, what’s due was only up to the extent of P300,000 (covering the unpaid third, fourth and fifth monthly installments). Absent any acceleration clause, the entire one million was not yet due.

The bank, therefore, may deduct P300,000 pesos from your bank deposit by way of compensation.

(TabangTorni is for public legal education only. The situations discussed are hypothetical or drawn from public issues and published court decisions. Any resemblance to actual persons or private cases is purely coincidental. No confidential or privileged client information is disclosed. The discussion is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. For advice regarding your specific circumstances, please consult a lawyer.)

29/08/2026

As the final part of our Bar Review Series: Frequently Asked Topics in the Bar Exam, Atty. Lj Ramos will discuss various Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law. Learn why "Nullum crimen sine lege" is important, what are mala in se crimes, and more on Dura Lex Sed Lex this Sunday, 2:30 PM, at Bombo Radyo Cagayan de Oro.

27/08/2026

LAW AND BEHOLD: NEW GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN B.P. 22 CASES

By: Atty. Lj Ramos

Issuing checks without sufficient funding is illegal under B.P. 22 because the circulation of worthless checks undermines public confidence in trade and commerce. Nonetheless, some people continue to issue bouncing checks. Eventually, they will receive a notice of dishonor from the bank. To evade consequences, however, they perform this neat trick of refusing to receive the notice, or having someone else receive it. Once they are sued, they will claim that they were not notified or were improperly notified, and therefore, no cause of action arises.

Well, on 24 August 2026, the Supreme Court, recognizing the need to close loopholes and provide better guidance, adopted and promulgated the following guidelines in the case of Spouses Carlos v. People of the Philippines and Tire Star (G.R. No. 277-047-1) to further refine and standardize the rules governing the service of the notice of dishonor in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases:

1) Service shall primarily be made personally.
2) If personal service is not practicable, service may be effected by registered mail.
3) Service through electronic means may likewise be used, either as a primary mode or as a form of substituted service.
4) The person effecting service, in whatever mode, must execute an oath regarding the circumstances of the issuance, reinforced with photos or video recordings, relevant dates, time of service, etc. Regardless of the mode of service, the requirement for an affidavit of service of the notice of dishonor is now mandatory.

On Personal Service
1) Service may be given personally to the drawer. When the drawer issues the check through or using a company, service of the notice of dishonor may be made at the company’s office or to the clerk or person who usually receives documents.
2) If no person is found in the office, or if the office is unknown, notice may be left at the drawer’s residence during working hours with a resident of sufficient age.

Registered Mail
1) The notice of dishonor may be addressed to the drawer, with instructions to return the mail to the sender after 10 days if undelivered.
2) Ordinary mail may be a substitute if no registry service is available.
3) Said service shall constitute the final notice for the counting of the five-banking-day period.

Electronic Means
1) Electronic means is a primary mode of service if the email of the check issuer has been made available to the payee in official communications.
2) It is considered substituted service if through other electronic means (such as Viber, Facebook Messenger, and similar) where there is clear showing that personal service is not practicable, such as evasion of service, refusal to receive notice, or causing the notice to be received by an unauthorized person.
3) For electronic means as a substitute to be valid, it must be attributable and reasonably verified. Such can be established through:
a)Prior message exchanges with the sender regarding the same transaction;
b)The drawer's prior written or electronic confirmation of the email address, account, or number;
c)The drawer's use of the same email address, account, or number to send instructions, acknowledgments, or confirmations to the sender; and/or
d)Other analogous circumstances.

For the drawer’s part, mere denial of receipt shall not be sufficient to invalidate a service. The drawer must show that it was physically impossible for them to have received the notice of dishonor.

All things considered, hopefully, this strengthens the justice system’s fight against the proliferation of worthless checks. This way, these guidelines may help recover the public's trust and confidence.

(Disclaimer: This material is provided for general legal information only and is not a substitute for legal advice. Its application depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the firm, its partners, or its associates.)

25/08/2026

[Content Notice: This legal discussion involves a sensitive topic; reader discretion is advised.]

Atty, ang r**e case ba is exclusive ba nga kaso sa babaeng biktima niini o apil pud ne sa mga lalaking biktima?
- Romeo

Dear Romeo,

Sa bag-ong amendments sa atong balaod batok sa r**e, pwede na nga ang biktima lalaki or babae, regardless if r**e through sexual in*******se siya or r**e through sexual assault.

Ang r**e aduna nay duha ka klase: r**e through sexual in*******se and r**e through sexual assault. Sauna, kay ang nakasulat sa Revised Penal Code, “Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman”, babae ra ang pwede nga mahimong biktima sa r**e through sexual in*******se.

Pag 1997, nahimong balaod ang R.A. No. 8353, nadugang ang r**e through sexual assault, og na apil na ani nga pwede ang lalaki mahimong biktima, kay sa balaod ang nakasulat naman kay “committed by any person”. Pero limitado lang siya sa “sexual assault”, or kun asa ang pag-r**e kay either ang pagsulod og mga instrumento or gamit or tudlo sa kotipot o baba sa biktima. Pwede sad nga ang r**e pinaagi ani ang victim og ang offender same gender.

Pero pag 2022, napasa ang R.A. No. 11648, kon asa gi ilisdan na ang term sa RPC batok sa r**e. Karon, ang nakasulat na kay “r**e is committed by a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person”. Busa gitanggal na ang limitasyon sa gender sa r**e. Ma r**e through sexual in*******se man siya o r**e through sexual assault, pwede na nga ang biktima either babae or lalaki. Basta naa ang mga circumstances nga naa sa balaod sama sa force, threat, intimidation, unconsciousness, fraudulent machination, or grave abuse of authority.

So as of today, both men and women can be victims of r**e.

(Disclaimer: TabangTorni is for public legal education only. The situations discussed are hypothetical or drawn from public issues and published court decisions. Any resemblance to actual persons or private cases is purely coincidental. No confidential or privileged client information is disclosed. The discussion is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. For advice regarding your specific circumstances, please consult a lawyer.)

24/08/2026

LAW AND BEHOLD: THE EVOLUTION OF A BREACH OF A PROMISE TO MARRY

By: Atty. Lj Ramos

“Will you marry me?” has got to be one of the most life-changing questions a person can ask or receive during his or her lifetime. It signifies a willingness for couples to embark on a new phase in their relationship, and the preparation for the creation of a new family unit.

But alas, even when the promise has been sealed with a sweet “I do”, it does not always end with an exchange of rings and a pronouncement by the solemnizing officer stating, “You may now kiss the bride.”

What does jurisprudence state in case of a breach of promise to marry? Under our laws, a breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. This doctrine was first pronounced in the 1960 case of Hermosisima v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-14628). The Supreme Court observed that the New Civil Code omitted the provisions in the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 that allowed actions for breach of promise to marry. Hermosisima treated the omission to mean that such a breach is no longer recognized as an actionable wrong.

The trend regarding these types of cases, however, is that while generally a breach of promise to marry is still not actionable, the circumstances surrounding the breach may still be a source of liability. In the 1964 case of Wassmer v. Velez (G.R. No. L-20089), the Court ruled that to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different from a mere breach of promise to marry. Here, this is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs, for which the defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil Code.

In Baksh v. Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993), the Supreme Court justified the award of damages for an act of breach of promise to marry because it was in fact made with fraud and deceit. In reality, Baksh had no intention of marrying the plaintiff, and the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to obtain her consent to have sexual congress. This willful injury to her honor and reputation was committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.

In Guevarra v. Banach (G.R. No. 214059), while the woman-petitioner was the one who breached the promise to marry, the Supreme Court held that it was justified because the breach occurred upon her learning of the man-respondent’s lies and deception. As the Court of Appeals found, the respondent’s actions were tainted with fraud and deceit; he did not have the purest intentions in marrying the petitioner. He lied about his marital status and even hid his true name from her. These acts sufficed to justify the wedding's cancellation. Finding out that one's betrothed is still married to another person, and that they are not who they say they are, are reasons enough to conclude bad faith. Therefore, even when there was money involved, damages could not be claimed.

For decades, the breach of promise to marry has stayed in the realm of civil cases. However, in the recent case of ### v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. E-00648) promulgated on 29 July 2026, such a breach has become a possible cause of action incurring criminal liability.

In this case, a police officer, after getting a teacher pregnant, promised to marry her. His family met hers, and they even successfully lodged their marriage license application with the Civil Registrar. However, the very next day, the officer unilaterally withdrew the marriage license application. He subsequently married another woman a few months later. These series of events caused the teacher emotional anguish, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation.

Here, the Court ruled that the officer was not penalized for a breach of promise to marry per se, but rather because his acts constituted psychological violence, which is a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (Anti-VAWC). His "willful" withdrawal of the marriage license—knowing the victim was pregnant and had already announced the union—constitutes a form of emotional manipulation and public humiliation that fits the definition of psychological violence. Therefore, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine years and four months of prision mayor, as maximum.

Ultimately, our laws on human relations allow people to renege on their promise to marry as an acknowledgment of the reality that one’s heart can be fickle, and the same heart that promised everlasting love today may not feel the same way tomorrow. It is only when the promise of forever was never made out of love, but rather because of immoral lust, or with intent to deceive, or due to ulterior motives, that the law will bring down its full might against the wrongdoer.

(Disclaimer: This material is provided for general legal information only and is not a substitute for legal advice. Its application depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the firm, its partners, or its associates.)